“It seems the women are taking over": Stereotyping around women in top-level leadership positions in Ghana's universities

abstract

This article explores patterns of change in the advancement of academic women’s leadership at universities in Ghana. Referred to as the ‘glass ceiling’, women generally suffered great setbacks in their advancement in leadership positions, although recent events have led to the appointment and election of women into top-level leadership positions at universities. At a conference at the University of Ghana, organised by the Merian Institute for Advanced Studies in Africa in September 2022, one attendee commented that “It seems the women are taking over”, due to the number of women occupying top-level positions at the university. Existing literature on women’s leadership at the universities have not adequately explored the implications of the recent appointment of women vice-chancellors on the perception of women’s leadership and advancement of the careers of other women at universities. This article sets out to investigate the challenges women face in the advancement of their careers, and implications of the recent appointment of women into leadership positions. Using a feminist decolonial lens, it inductively analyses semi-structured interviews with key academic women as well as men in leadership positions at selected universities, backed with the authors’ experience as female academics, and employment records. It adds to knowledge on the gradual advancement of women to top leadership positions at universities.

keywords:

• universities
• women academics
• women’s leadership
• feminist decoloniality
• glass ceiling

Introduction

At a Merian Institute for Advanced Studies in Africa conference held at the Institute of African Studies at the University of Ghana (UG) on ‘Women Academics in the Universities: Prospects and Challenges’ in September 2022, diverse concerns were raised about the challenges women face in their career as well as prospects for progress. One attendee asserted that there was no glass ceiling to women’s leadership, since the administrative leadership of the UG is predominantly women. The participant noted that he was surprised academics still “speak of the marginalisation of women. The women are taking over. There are no barriers to women’s leadership and this university is an example of that.”

There is a global concern that academic hierarchies are not demographically representative of gender and race. Historically, black women have been visibly underrepresented in managerial positions in most bureaucratic organisations (Stainback & Kwon 2012; Mahabeer, Nzimande & Shoba 2018). There is overt or subtle opposition to women’s leadership, caused by socialisation of the sexes and social expectations, gender stereotypes, cultural and religious gender discrimination, structural and institutional barriers, slow advancement in women’s education, masculine corporate culture, inadequate leadership opportunities and experience, fewer role models, and lack of top management commitment to gender equity and equal employment initiatives (Bell, McLaughlin & Sequeira 2002; International Labour Organization 2015; Sadiq et al. 2019; Belluigi & Thondhlana 2019). As a result of nurturing-associated responsibilities, most women dominate in unpaid work in domestic spaces while men dominate in professional paid work (Acevedo 2002). Nevertheless, in recent years the concept of gender equality and gender equity has gained currency as most developmental strategies place more emphasis on bridging the gender gaps in social, economic, and political institutions for the achievement of poverty reduction goals (Luke 2001; Aina 2013).

The universities remain one of the male-dominated work spaces with sub-cultures and norms that do not aid women to progress as quickly as men (Mama 2003; Britwum, Oduro & Prah 2013). The universities can be described using terms such as ‘the greasy pole’, the ‘glass ceiling’, ‘glass escalator’ and ‘male-centred universities’, among others, due to the existence of subtle forms of sex segregation (Hymowitz & Schellhardt 1986; Williams 1992). Described by Baglihole (1994) as “outsiders and disadvantaged”, “the others”, or “double deviants”, academic women working in male-dominated institutions most often need to work twice as hard to prove their worth and inclusion. Flanders’ (1994) phrase “glass ceiling” is used to describe the frustration working women face in their career advancement due to intangible barriers. The term “glass-ceiling-effect” has become synonymous with the difficulties women face in advancing to senior, executive, and top management positions in corporate organisations around the world (Wirth 1997). Women are the least represented in both the teaching and administrative organogram because of the percentage of women senior members and professors (Adusah-Karikari 2018).

In South Africa, black women face a myriad of intersectional challenges in terms of race, gender and class within the universities, and are often depicted as ‘space invaders’ or ‘outsiders within’ (Mahabeer, Nzimande & Shoba 2018). At the University of Cape Town, about 88.5% of full professors were white males (Sadiq et al. 2019, p. 424). In Zimbabwe, in 2022 there were only two out of 21 universities headed by female Vice-Chancellors. In Ghana, out of the 15 public universities (excluding technical universities), there are only three female Vice-Chancellors, one female Chancellor and one woman serving as the Chair of the University Council (see Table 1). This is evidence of the continued existence of the glass ceiling that prevents women’s advancement. The University of Cape Coast (UCC) made history with the appointment of the first female Vice-Chancellor in Ghana, Prof. Jane Naana Opoku Agyemang (2008). In 2013, the University of Ghana (UG) swore in its first female Registrar, Mercy Haizel-Ashia. In 2013 the UG swore in its first female Registrar. Similarly, the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) and UG appointed the first female Vice-Chancellors, Prof. Rita A. Dickson (2020) and Prof. Nana Aba Appiah-Amfo (2021), respectively (see Table 2).

TABLE 1: List of public universities* in Ghana and number of female Vice-Chancellors

Name of university	Date established	No. of Principals/ Vice-Chancellors	No. of female Vice-Chancellors	No. of principal officers^1	No. of female principal officers
University of Ghana (UG)	1948	13	1	6	4
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)	1951	14	1	4	1
University of Cape Coast (UCC)	1962	16	1	4	1
CK Tedam University for Technology and Applied Sciences (CKT-UYAS)	2020	1	-	5	-
University of Education, Winneba (UEW)	1992	7	-	5	-
Simon Diedong Dombo University for Business and Integrated Development Studies (SDD-UBIDS)	2019	1	-	5	-
Akenten Appiah Menkah University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development (AAMUSTED)	2020	1	-	5	1
University for Development Studies (UDS)	1992	4	-	5	-
University of Professional Studies (UPS)	1965			4	-
University of Mines and Technology (UMAT)	2001	5	-	4	-
University of Health and Allied Sciences (UHAS)	2011	3	1	3	2
University of Energy and Natural Resources (UENR)	2012	5	-	3	1
University of Environment and Sustainable Development (UESD)	2020	1	-	5	1
Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration (GIMPA)	2004	5	-	4	1
Ghana Communication Technology University (GCTU)	2005	1	-	5	-

Source: Compiled by authors.

*Excluding Technical universities.

¹The principal officers include the Chancellor, Chair of the University Council, Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and Director of Finance. Note that not all the universities have all portfolios filled.

Table 2: Lists of Principals and Vice-Chancellors at selected universities, 1948–2023

University of Ghana	Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology	University of Cape Coast
David Mowbray Balme (1948–1957)	Dr JP Andrews (1952–1954)	Dr CA Ackah (1962–-1964)
Raymond Henry Stoughton (1957–1962)	Dr WE Duncanson (1954– 1960)	Dr NG Bakhoom (1964–1966)
Conor Cruise O'Brien (1962–1965)	Dr RP Baffour (1960–1967)	Dr CA Ackah (1966–1968)
Alexander Adum Kwapong (1966–1975)	Dr E Evans-Anfom (1967–1973)	Prof. KA Nyarko, Acting (1968–1969)
Daniel Adzei Bekoe (1976–1983)	Prof. E Bamfo-Kwakye (1974–1983)	Prof. EA Boateng (1969–1972)
Akilagpa Sawyerr (1985–1992)	Prof. FO Kwami (1984–1992)	Prof. Yanney-Ewusie (1973–1978)
George Benneh (1992–1996)	Prof. EH Amonoo Neizer (1992–1997)	Prof. SK Odamtten, Acting Vice-Chancellor (1978–1980)
Ivan Addae-Mensah (1996–2002)	Prof. AK Tuah (1997–1999)	Prof. KB Dickson (1980–1988)
Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere (2002–2006)	Prof. JSK Ayim (1999–2002)	Prof. KN Eyeson, Acting Vice-Chancellor (1988– 1989)
Clifford Nii-Boi Tagoe (2006–2010)	Prof. KA Andam (2002–2006)	Prof. KB Dickson (1989–1990)
Ernest Aryeetey (2010–2016)	Prof. KK Adarkwa (2006–2010)	Rev. Prof. SK Ajepong (1991–2001)
Ebenezer Oduro Owusu (2016– 2021)	Prof. WO Ellis (2010–2016)	Emmanuel Addow-Obeng (2001–2008)
Nana Aba Appiah-Amfo (2021–present)	Prof. K Obiri-Danso (2016–2020)	Jane Naana Opoku-Agyemang (2008–2012)
	Prof. (Mrs) RA Dickson (2020–present)	DD Kuupole (2012–2016)
		Prof. Joseph Ghartey Ampiah (2016–2022)
		Prof. Johnson Nyarko Boampong (2022–present)

Source: Compiled by authors.

At most African universities, a significant number of women remain at lower levels as administrators, Assistant Lecturers, and Lecturers, and this accounts for the underrepresentation of women in higher education management. In South Africa, with a gender gap index of 0.78, women constitute about 19% of Vice-Chancellors (Toni and Moodly 2019). Despite the gender neutrality requirement of all senior management positions¹ at the universities in Ghana, this article establishes that in Ghana, one can find few examples of women occupying diverse senior management positions such as Chancellors, Vice-Chancellors, Registrars, Professors, Senior Lecturers, Senior Researchers, Deputy Registrars, Provosts, Deans, and Heads of Department. Women are still far from being on an equal footing with men in the university’s administrative organogram (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Universities’ administrative organogram.

Source: Authors’ compilation.

In this article we discuss the challenges women face in their pursuit of leadership, and seek to answer whether or not the glass ceiling in the university leadership structure has been broken. Certain key factors have influenced the changes in women’s leadership positions, key among which are the international statutes on gender equity and equality, institutional policies on gender, and the existence of women role models. The United Nations Decade for Women from 1975 to 1985, the 1981 UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the 1995 Fourth World Conference for Women in Beijing, the 2000 Millennium Development Goals and the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals have all sought to design, implement and monitor policies to ensure the full participation of women. These also sought to establish effective, efficient and mutually reinforcing gender-sensitive policies and programmes, including development policies and programmes, at all levels to foster the empowerment and advancement of women (Poku & Mdee 2011). This has influenced a general national commitment to equitable gender inclusion in national policy processes, which has also influenced institutions to introduce gender-sensitive policies. In 2018, KNUST introduced its gender and diversity policy, while the UG also introduced one in 2023.

Existing studies on gender at the universities have focused mainly on the levels of participation of females and males in various leadership positions, with a little focus on implications of the recent increase in the number of women holding key leadership positions at universities (Manu, Gariba & Budu 2007; Adusah-Karikari 2008; Ohene 2010; Tsikata 2019). This article therefore examines the implication of the increase in women leaders at universities in Ghana in the quest for gender equity.

Research methodology

Relying chiefly on the phenomenological research approach, this is exploratory research that gathered the common lived experiences of female academics at three selected universities: UG, KNUST, and UCC. The choice of university was made according to the longevity of their existence as well as their appointment of women into the highest senior management positions. Ten participants (seven women and three men) comprising Professors, Senior Lecturers, and Lecturers were interviewed from January to March 2023. A few men were included to assess the different perceptions that men and women have in terms of women’s leadership. Interviews were conducted in person and through Zoom, and each lasted from 30 minutes to an hour. Due to the sensitivity of the information provided, the identities of the participants are hidden by providing each respondent with a pseudonym using indigenous Ghanaian names (see Table 3). The main challenge faced was overcoming some participants’ familiarity with the researcher, which made it difficult to get a neutral response. To overcome that, other unknown academics from other universities were also interviewed.

TABLE 3: Summary of respondent characteristics

Pseudonym	Gender	Rank	Present or past leadership position held	University of employment
Akosua	Female	Professor	None	UG
Adwoa	Female	Professor	Former Provost	KNUST
Abena	Female	Lecturer	Former Head of an Institute	UCC
Kwasi	Male	Associate Professor	Former Head of Department	KNUST
Kwadwo	Male	Professor	Provost	UCC
Yaw	Male	Senior Lecturer	None	UG
Akua	Female	Associate Professor	Head of Department	KNUST
Afia	Female	Lecturer	None	UG
Ama	Female	Associate Professor	Former Dean	KNUST

• Note that one respondent, Prof. Florence Dolphyne, was not kept anonymous due to the relevance of her status as the first female Pro Vice-Chancellor. Her consent was sought before her name was used.

Building on the findings of secondary data, interviews, the researchers’ own observations as female academics, archival data, staff enrolment statistics, gender policies of the universities, and induction speeches of appointed female Vice-Chancellors are used to supplement interview data. Thematic analysis of the research data was triangulated by outlining relevant information and analysing it through a decolonial feminism lens.

Feminist decoloniality: A theoretical note

Decolonial feminism, as proposed by Maria Lugone (2007, 2008, 2010), seeks to inject gender into the concept of decolonisation, as this is centrally focused on the male decolonisation struggle. Using the terms “coloniality of gender”, “decolonial feminism”, and the “modern/colonial gender system”, Lugones reanalyses the colonial imposition of gender on all aspects of former colonies (human relations, ecology, economics, politics, and knowledge production) despite nominal independence. It seeks to contest the claim that both colonised women and bourgeois white women were all disempowered by the same modern/colonial gender system. Lugones (2010, p. 752) notes that colonised men and women were subjects not of ‘genderisation’ but of mere crude ‘sexualisation’ into female and male non-beings.

Lugones therefore proposes a decolonial feminism, which seeks to take the “global designs for racialised female and male energy and, erasing the colonial difference, takes that energy to be used towards the destruction of the worlds of meaning of our possibilities.” Lugones posits that at the intersection of gender, class, and race is the central construct of the capitalist works system of power, terming this the “coloniality of gender” (Lugones 2008, p. 746). Colonialism incorporated women within the European patriarchal, colonial and imperial modern systems. The gender dichotomy privileged European males first, then European females, followed by African males, with African women at the bottom – thereby enforcing systemic violence on African women which has persisted into contemporary times. This is what is referred to as “double colonialism” (Petersen & Rutherford 1986). The colonial/modern gender system subjects both men and women of all races to the colonial gender structure; therefore, decolonial feminists propose a gender transformation discourse to overcome the colonial global gender structure.

Lugone’s theoretical composition had already been illustrated by African feminists Oyewumi (1997) and Amadiume’s (1987) ground-breaking research to show how colonialism introduced the representation of body and gender inequalities. Amadiume (1987) emphasised how early anthropologists and evolutionists categorised women at the bottom together with slaves and beasts, while Victorian women were on top of the apex with European men. She contradicts earlier anthropological research on the Igbo by highlighting the flexibility of Igbo gender construction, which separated gender from biological sex. Amadiume (1987, p. 8) notes that “Daughters could become sons and consequently male. Daughters and women in general could be husbands to wives and consequently male in relation to their wives.” This helped to emphasise the dual-sex nature of the traditional political system in Igboland. Similarly, Oyewumi (1997) challenges the Western gender discourses of universalising gender across space and time, by arguing that the precolonial Yoruba society was not organised on gender lines. She notes that ‘woman’ as a social category did not exist in the Yoruba society, because “the body was not the basis of social roles, inclusions, or exclusions; it was not the foundation of social thought and identity” (Oyewumi 1997, p. x). Amadiume and Oyewumi make a convincing case for a decolonial paradigm shift away from the Eurocentric biological determinism used to organise the social world.

Rethinking gender through feminist decoloniality is crucial in unpacking the coloniality of gender in Africa. Postcolonial feminists emphasise how colonial experience related to race, class and ethnicity marginalised women. It is important to emphasise that contemporary African societies cannot be understood outside the colonial contexts and influences. In this sense, Petersen and Rutherford’s (1986) “double colonization”, coined to question female visibility and struggles of female writers in a male-dominated world, can be used by extension to refer to women’s oppression by both Western patriarchy and colonisation. The western conception of womanhood tended to limit women within society to private functions (mothering and nurturing), while manhood was predominately functional in the public domain (especially in political and economic spheres). Graham (1971, p. 71) indicates that the 18th and 19th century European patriarchal notion of womanhood was to “contribute daily and hourly towards the comfort of husbands, of parents, of brothers and sisters, and other relations, connections and friends, in the intercourse of domestic life.”

Masculinity and patriarchy define women’s whole existence, based on marriage, producing children and caring for their family. Tamale (2004) notes that patriarchy draws a line between domesticity (the private arena) and the public arena for women. In these private spaces, women were designated the role of care-giving while men served as heads of the family. At the same time, men served as public actors, and were supposed to represent women (as fathers, husbands, or brothers) in the public sphere. Thus, women depended on men to access the public space (Tamale 2004; Walsh & Scully 2006).

Even in institutions where women were accepted in public spaces, they were still ascribed feminine or gender-based social roles, such as making tea, serving food, and taking minutes, with some perceived as ‘mothers’ in their departments, in the case of the universities (Tsikata 2019). They were forced to add these extra responsibilities to their teaching, research, and service obligations. There are several instances where the authors have been asked to take minutes in meetings, perhaps due to their age, biological sex, or rank within the departments. Afia mentioned that “the cleaner (male) in my department refused to clean my office because I am a woman; therefore, I was forced to clean my office before starting my daily work until I reported him to the HOD.” This is an indication that women in authority were not as respected as men in authority, even by male subordinates. This translates into key sectors of the African society: education, politics, and the economy.

Policy-wise, although there were no formal restrictions to access to education and programmes of study, or sex segregation of schools, in practice there was uneven entry of girls compared to boys. This was even more precarious at higher education levels. When the UG was established in 1948, two out of the 98 students were female; likewise, at KNUST in 1951 two out of the 202 students were female (Agbodeka 1998; Pitcher 1976). Similarly, in employment certain positions in the civil service were closed to women, especially those in administrative positions. Women were especially employed in jobs such as school teachers, nurses, clerks, and telephone operators. In addition, women in employment were expected to resign once married or pregnant (Manu 1991).

When the University College of Gold Coast was established in October 1948 and the College of Technology, Science and Arts Ordinance in Kumasi in October 1951, the appointment of the University Council members, Principal, and administrative and non-administrative staff was under the mandate of the University of London (Public Records and Archives Administration Department (PRAAD), Accra, RG3/6/182; PRAAD, Kumasi, ARG/1/13/1/29; Gold Coast Bulletin, 20 October 1948). The teaching staff were predominantly male and white, with the exception of a few white women, such as Ms Margaret Peil (Agbodeka 1998). There has been an injection of African women into teaching and non-teaching staff portfolios, and a more gradual injection into leadership positions. This is succinctly put by Akua, who notes that “women may not be on the same pedestal with men in terms of numbers, so it will take a while for equitable representation of the genders. We will get there some day, but not now.”

Overview of women’s leadership representation at Ghana’s universities

After independence, Nkrumah made attempts to decolonise the universities by Africanising both the staff and the curriculum. He replaced O’Brien with Alexander Kwapong at UG, Dr Duncanson with Dr Baffour at KNUST, and Dr Bakhoom with Dr Ackah for UCC (Agbodeka 1998, Pitcher 1976; Kwarteng, Boadi-Siaw & Dwarko 2012). A conscious gender policy was not implemented in the area of enrolment and employment. The universities operated as gender-neutral institutions, yet they have remained spaces for the perpetration of gender inequalities. In the organogram of public universities, as seen in Figure 1, the highest office holders in the hierarchy include the Chairperson of the University Council, Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Provost, Deans and Heads of Departments/Institutes. Historically, almost all of these positions were conventionally the reserve of men, until 1996 when the first woman professor, Florence Abena Dolphyne, was elected as the Pro Vice-Chancellor of UG. Dolphyne (personal communication, 15 March 2023) notes that in a quest to be elected as a Pro Vice-Chancellor, a woman boldly told her that she would not vote for her simply because she was a woman.

Women have gradually crept into the space of senior management positions. Table 1 illuminates that UG, KNUST, and UCC have each had only one female Vice-Chancellor since these universities were established. After being the first university to appoint a woman as Vice-Chancellor, UCC has had two female Pro Vice-Chancellors: Prof. Dora F Edu-Buandoh and Prof. Rosemond Boohene (2022). In recent years, UG has unprecedentedly appointed women to its four highest positions: Justice Sophia AB Akuffo as Chairperson of the University Council, Mary Chinery-Hesse as Chancellor in 2018, Prof. Nana Aba Appiah-Amfo as Vice-Chancellor, and Mrs Emelia Agyei-Mensah as the Registrar. In her induction speech, Appiah Amfo (2021) noted:

So, for the first time ever, the three Principal Officers of the University as by law defined are female. And we topped it up with a female Registrar. It is a bold statement that the University, supported by government, is ready to give true meaning to its fourth strategic priority, Gender and Diversity, by ensuring that merit is rewarded, irrespective of one’s gender, background, ethnicity and race.

As illustrated in Table 1, the UG remains the only university where women outnumber men as principal officers. Although this changing trend in women’s leadership on the whole may appear numerically insignificant, it is an indication of the advancement of women’s careers and an indication of cracks in the glass ceiling which for so long hindered women’s progression in leadership.

Some academics have questioned whether or not these are ‘affirmative action hires’. Some argue that the challenge with the ‘first women’ phenomenon is that in most instances it is a form of tokenism in a predominantly male organisation. Tokenism also manifests by acknowledging the professional accomplishments of individual women, while maintaining the perception that the group is below standard (Kanter 1977). For instance, when Prof. Dickson was appointed as KNUST’s Vice-Chancellor in 2020, there were informal discussions as to whether her appointment was as a result of her gender. Her gender was also used to question her capability to do the job. In a conversation with some male staff, her competence was questioned based on her publication/research output as compared to that of her contender, Prof. Ellis Owusu-Dabo. Kanter (1977) argues that such women are placed under constant psychological pressure, scrutiny from colleagues, and isolation because of their small representation.

Institutionally, some universities in Ghana are adopting a conscious gender policy for enrolment of students, recruitment of faculty, and introduction of scholarship schemes. In 2018, under the leadership of Prof. Obiri-Danso, the KNUST gender policy was launched to serve as the blueprint of gender responsiveness, especially in areas such as student enrolment, staff recruitment, training, scholarship, and promotion, leadership and governance, and the prevention and combat of gender-based violence and harassment (KNUST Gender Policy 2018). The KNUST Equality and Diversity Policy (2018, pp. 3-4) establishes that:

o	The University aims to ensure that all members of its community are treated with fairness, dignity and respect.
o	The University will apply this policy in compliance with and in the spirit of the relevant legislation.
o	The University will not discriminate on grounds of age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion, belief or sex in any decisions concerning student admissions, progression or provision of support. The policy states that underrepresented groups are encouraged to apply to work and study at the University. Where necessary, positive action may be applied.
o	The University will not discriminate on grounds of any protected characteristic, in decisions concerning staff recruitment and selection, career development, promotion, staff development opportunities, pay and remuneration, or reward and recognition.
o	The University will not discriminate against any person on grounds of age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion, belief or sex in the provision of facilities or services, or in the exercise of public functions.
o	In the provision of residential accommodation, the University will seek to provide an inclusive living and study environment. The University will not discriminate on grounds of age, disability, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion, belief or sex in this context.
o	Underrepresented groups are encouraged to apply to work and study at the University. Where necessary, positive action may be applied.
o	The University will carry out monitoring, where practicable, by protected groups to ensure that all job applicants, applicants for promotion and applicants for study are being fairly treated, and to support and inform the Equality Impact Assessment process.
o	The University will assess the impact of its policies and practices to identify and mitigate any disadvantage to protected groups.

Even with these policies, there are no action points and deliverables indicated. It does not indicate any commitment to affirmative action to bridge the gender gap where women’s representation is lacking; however, it indicates a general good will to ensure fairness and equity in student and staff affairs. The policy states that “The University shall strive to use a proactive recruitment policy with several policy instruments to achieve a balanced gender distribution”, without indicating this proactive measure (KNUST 2018, p. 6). A similar challenge can be identified with the recently launched gender policy for UG, which states “in recruitments, appointments and promotions and the university shall institute special measures to ensure gender equality at all employee levels” (UG Gender Policy 2022). The question to ask is: How do the universities intend to implement these policies? 

Challenges facing women in educational leadership positions

Several challenges hinder women’s career advancement, key among which are the socialisation of the sexes, stereotype perceptions, institutional cultures, family demands and expectations, and inability to meet promotion requirements (Emory 2008; Aidoo & Achira 2015; Stamarski & Son Hing 2015). In most cases, women who seek to climb the leadership ladder must work twice as hard as their male counterparts to prove themselves to their superiors, subordinates and family. Mama (2003) identified that women make up only 3% of Africa's professoriate and account for only 25% of those enrolled in African universities. In UG’s professoriate in 2022 (see Table 3), male professors formed 6% of the academic staff and women 0.9% – still a highly insignificant number. There has been very little progress from the 6.1% male and 0.8% female professors in 2011 (see Table 4). The statistics are slightly higher for associate professors, where men constitute 11.1% and women 2.8%. The gradual increase in the number of women professors has influenced the increase in women leaders, yet the representation of women among the professoriate remains extremely low.

Table 4: University of Ghana teaching staff statistics by gender and rank

2011/2012
Rank of academic staff	Male (No. and %)	Female (No. and %)	Total (No. and %)
Professor	66 (6.1%)	9 (0.8%)	75 (6.9%)
Associate Professor	108 (10%)	34 (3.1%)	142 (13.1)
Senior Lecturer	232 (21.4%)	56 (5.2%)	288 (26.6%)
Lecturer	336 (31%)	119 (11%)	455 (42%)
Assistant Lecturer	77 (7.1%)	47 (4.3%)	124 (11.4%)
Total	819 (75.6%)	265 (24.2%)	1084 (100%)
Source: https://www.ug.edu.gh/irpo/sites/irpo/files/Staff%202012.pdf
2021/2022
Rank of academic staff	Male (No. and %)	Female (No. and %)	Total (No. and %)
Professor	87 (6%)	13 (0.9%)	100 (6.9%)
Associate Professor	161 (11.1%)	41 (2.8%)	202 (13.9%)
Senior Lecturer	417 (28.8%)	167 (11.5%)	584 (40.3%)
Lecturer	258 (17.8%)	142 (9.8%)	44 (27.6%)
Assistant Lecturer	96 (6.6%)	67 (4.6%)	163 (11.25%)
Total	1019 (70.3%)	430 (29.7%)	1449 (100%)
Source: https://www.ug.edu.gh/irpo/sites/irpo/files/Staff.pdf

All seven women interviewed identified that women find it difficult to combine domestic responsibilities with their academic ones, while in most instances men are less hindered by domestic responsibilities outside their financial provision for their families. Akua (personal communication, 10 March 2023) notes:

… while we contribute financially in the home just like our husbands, we receive very little help in domestic chores. Yet, we compete on the same level with the men for promotions and leadership. I think different promotion criteria should be designed for women.

In listing her daily routine, Afia (personal communication, 2 July 2023) indicated as follows:

I wake up at 4:30 am to prepare the entire family for school while my husband sleeps. I cook and prepare the children for school. By the time I arrive at work, I am already tired and sleepy. If I will do any meaningful research, it means I have to sacrifice more of my sleeping hours. By 3:30 pm, I need to close to pick the children from school. How do I progress professionally with this? It is very difficult for me to keep up.

Some sympathetic academics have suggested using a different criterion to assess women and men for promotion, based on women’s extra familial responsibilities. In contrast, male participant Kwasi asserted that giving different criteria for men and women means acknowledging the societal perception that women were not as competent as men:

… it will be discrimination against men for different promotion criteria to be applied to men and women in the universities. We all qualify to be here based on merit, so promotion must equally be based on merit.

Personal resilience and religiosity are essential strategies for negotiating the challenges faced, while remaining relevant at the workplace. Abena (personal communication, 15 March 2023) noted:

… while in regular working spaces, employees are required to work for 8 hours 8–5pm); university work, especially based on research, grantsmanship, and service requires putting in extra work outside the regular working hours. The rigour of academic and domestic responsibilities often hinders career progress of women, as each require putting in extra hours and commitment.

Akosua (personal communication, 2 March, 2023) adds:

… women’s academic progression is slower because for a woman to succeed in the academic environment, she needs extra commitment, toughness, and excellence.

Women’s responsibilities associated with childbirth or family life prevent most women from competing for opportunities, and those who do so may have their performance impaired domestically or academically.

Victorian, stereotyped perceptions of women as feminine, moral, self-sacrificing, dutiful, and domestic – and thus better suited for work involving the home or social issues – influence the preference for male leadership (Stivers 1995, p. 524). Patriarchy perceives men as worldly, aggressive, self-interested and best suited for work involving scientific rigour and objectivity. According to Eagly and Carli (2007), leadership characteristics such as ambition, confidence, dominance, and boldness are frequently associated with stereotypical male traits, while female stereotypical traits such as kindness, helpfulness, warmth, and gentleness do not necessarily make women effective leaders. Adwoa (personal communication, 9 March 2023) indicated as follows: “When I expressed interest in the Deanship position to some of my colleagues, I was told I was too soft to be a Dean.” Despite the discouragement, Adwoa indicated how she succeeded in her election as both a Dean and provost afterwards. In addition, perceptions such as ‘women are their worst enemies’ and that ‘females in leadership positions tended to be harder on their own sex’ derail the argument even further (Manu, Gariba & Budu 2007, p. 130). Ama (personal communication, 24 July 2023) indicates how she is perceived as “bossy and a no-nonsense woman because of her intolerance of unethical practices.”

The universities are known to be a male-centric environment due to the institution of a male-centred approach and culture. Mama (2003) and Ramphele (2008) identify that European-founded universities in Africa have adopted a very strong male organisation due to the European patriarchal set-up, with key features such as power bargaining, harassment, sexism, and authoritarianism. O’Connor (2011, p. 84) describes the organisational culture of the universities as homosocial and conformist, describing senior management as a “boys’ club” with men who “still prefer to work with men”. Most university leadership positions by appointment and election require an intricate social network. Male social networks provide the needed support – most of which is lacking among women. One common practice which solidifies this ‘boys’ club’ phenomenon is the hanging out that takes place after work, at either the senior staff clubhouse or sports complex. At KNUST the authors observed that while women usually closed early, between 3 and 4 pm to pick up their children from school and perform other care-giving responsibilities, some men stay on in the office to continue their research (which enhances their promotion) or to hang out with other men in the senior staff clubhouse or sports complex.

Women in academia, especially those with leadership ambitions, are ‘forced’ to masculinise to be accepted in the male social networks. The underrepresentation of the woman in academic staff combined with a lack of confidence in the woman's leadership hinders women’s ambition for leadership. This, plus the fewer number of women in leadership and managerial positions, does not provide strong support for younger women. The university leadership must create a gender-sensitive environment to foster gender equity.

The place of role models in the female leadership structure at Ghanaian universities

A paradigm shift is taking place in colonial global gender structures as women’s leadership is gradually accepted. The recent accomplishment of female leaders has essentially encouraged upcoming women through personal interaction, training, and monitoring. The increase in female leaders in senior management positions is most likely to positively influence younger academics’ advancement in leadership. This is reflected in the induction speech of the Vice-Chancellor of UG (Appiah Amfo 2021) when she stated as follows:

I would like to salute every woman who ever put herself up for this [Vice-Chancellor] position. It took four other women competing in previous Vice-Chancellor races, until we got our first female Vice-Chancellor. Each woman who applied for the position built on the audacity of earlier ones who did. I would like to pay tribute to all women academics here at UG, who went ahead of me, particularly all who held competitive administrative positions (such as Deans, Directors and Pro Vice-Chancellors), and significantly to every woman who ever dared to apply for the position of Vice-Chancellor of our noble institution. I am thanking you today; because you crawled, so I could walk; you walked, so I could run; and I am running now, so the next generation of women academics and professionals can gallop.

The women in top leadership positions exemplify the capability of women irrespective of the challenges. It serves as a reference point and provides moral courage for younger women. As a result of these appointments, the social environment in Ghana is more receptive of female leadership positions now than it ever was before.

There are diverse training programmes and initiatives that seek to engage women’s leadership skills and confidence. At KNUST a conscious mentorship programme has been instituted at the recruitment stage to facilitate promotions.

To answer the question of whether or not the glass ceiling has been broken, this article establishes that statistically, men far outnumber women in leadership positions. From Table 1 one can establish that out of 16 universities with 67 principal officers, only 12 (17.9%) are female while 55 (82.1%) are male. Therefore, while the glass ceiling remains, cracks have appeared in it – and will perhaps be broken with time. As established throughout this article, several barriers hinder women’s swift progression to leadership at the universities. However, noticeable changes can be firmly established in areas such as advancement of women’s education, increased leadership opportunities for women, increased female role models, and commitment to establishing gender equity and equal employment initiatives, as established at KNUST in 2018 and UG in 2023. This serves as evidence in the continuing discourse on feminist decoloniality on the continent.

Conclusion

In 2021 Ghana’s gender gap index score reached 0.67, meaning that females were 33% less likely to have the same opportunities as males, especially in economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. Despite the fact that women constitute almost 51% of the total population, women’s participation in leadership remains relatively low. Nevertheless, this article provides concrete evidence of a paradigm shift in the global and national gender structure, particularly in the leadership structure. Many challenges which hindered women’s leadership in the organisational set-up at the universities are gradually changing as these institutions have become receptive to women’s leadership. This article adds to the decolonial scholars’ argument of the need to unpack the coloniality of gender in Africa, as well as the call by African feminists to debunk the western conception of Victorian womanhood, which tends to limit women in society to care-giving functions.

While concerns have been raised as to whether or not the recent appointments and elections are simply affirmative hires and forms of tokenism, one can equally identify in them positive role models, which other women will aspire to emulate. Whether or not they are forms of tokenism or affirmative hires, the initiatives to increase women’s leadership are laudable.

The universities must move beyond simply inaugurating gender policies to establish concrete implementation measures in recruitment, promotion, and development, taking into consideration the diverse challenges women face. In general, the evidence reviewed revealed that women are underrepresented in higher educational leadership. However, this research shows a recent trend of consciously including women in the selection of senior management at the universities. Based on the evidence provided, one can therefore say that although the glass ceiling still has a subtle presence, women’s advancement in leadership is gradually shattering it.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eugenia AB Anderson

EUGENIA AMA BREBA ANDERSON is an adjunct lecturer and feminist historian affiliated with the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana. She holds an MPhil and a PhD in Historical Studies, specialising in the gender question in Social Movements in Africa through the lens of student activism. Her expertise cuts across variant research themes and methods, with a key interest in student activism, gender, higher education, and healthcare. She is currently a Mellon Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow with the Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana, working on decolonisation and student activism in postcolonial African universities. She is part of a Feminist Africa Research Consortium on religious digital activism in Africa. Email: [email protected]

Nora K Nonterah

NORA KOFOGNOTERA NONTERAH is an ethicist and a lecturer in the Religious Studies Department, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. Her research focus is on how the study of religions has a positive impact on the day-to-day lives of people and its relevance for holistic education in contemporary societies. Her research interests include peacebuilding, social justice, women’s development, religious education, social ethics, interreligious dialogue, human rights, and the safeguarding of minors. Email: [email protected]

Margaret M Tayviah

Margaret M. TAYVIAH is a Lecturer at the Department of Religious Studies at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana. She is a historian of religions and her areas of expertise and research are Islamic studies and Christian-Muslim relations. Email: [email protected]

Sally Opoku Agyeman

SALLY OPOKU AGYEMAN is a teaching/research assistant in the Department of History and Political Studies at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History. Her research interests include gender history, environmental history and economic history. Email: [email protected]

Rufai Mahami

RUFAI MAHAMI is a teaching/research assistant in the Department of History and Political Studies at Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and his research interests include traditional leadership, gender, and science and technological history. Email: [email protected]

Notes

1 In Ghana the senior management level used here refers to both academic and administrative professionals such as Professors, Senior Lecturers, Senior Researchers, Registrars, Deputy Registrars, Finance Officers, Deputy Finance Officers and other analogous positions in higher education institutions (Adu-Oppong, Aikins & Darko 2017).